APPLE...Please lower the price of the watch to at least $200 dollars..Who here thinks

[DBZmusicboy01]

$350 is too darn expensive for a smartwatch?
When an iPad Mini sells for LESS
Why should a watch with little hours of battery and feature be sold for so high? Does Apple think it's fair to pretend to be like Starbucks or a company for the very rich? I understand profits and all but I mean the iPad Mini sells for less and it cost much more than to make such a tiny watch with a tiny LCD screen with no water protection or anything and bulky design too.
IF
THE
APPLE
WATCH
WAS
AT
MOST
$200
It would be a very fair deal. I hope Apple sees this. I am only criticizing it's cons because the high price. It's a great 1st gen watch and it would get better in the future but the most basic shouldn't cost that much. I can understand if it had premium quality like the sapphire and such but the basic should cost at the least $150-$200

 

[phantomsd]

No.

That's like saying you want sports cars to be cheaper because a minivan can seat more than two people.

Learn to appreciate craftsmanship, engineering, style, design.

 

[DBZmusicboy01]

No.

That's like saying you want sports cars to be cheaper because a minivan can seat more than two people.

Learn to appreciate craftsmanship, engineering, style, design.

I understand but it's not a very well made watch...Too bulky and has too many defects but yes it's a first gen. But when you think of it. There's too many disadvantages like the battery and screen and all sorts of problems.
Like a corvette will cost less than a Lamborghini but both are fasts cars but one of them has more features.
So if Apple watch cost more it should have more features than a Google Watch

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Sorry, but they're not marketing the Apple Watch to teenagers with little disposable income. Just because you can't afford it at $350 doesn't make it too expensive, and $350 is hardly a lot of money in the watch world.

 

[GizmoDVD]

$350 is too darn expensive for a smartwatch?
When an iPad Mini sells for LESS
Why should a watch with little hours of battery and feature be sold for so high? Does Apple think it's fair to pretend to be like Starbucks or a company for the very rich? I understand profits and all but I mean the iPad Mini sells for less and it cost much more than to make such a tiny watch with a tiny LCD screen with no water protection or anything and bulky design too.
IF
THE
APPLE
WATCH
WAS
AT
MOST
$200
It would be a very fair deal. I hope Apple sees this. I am only criticizing it's cons because the high price. It's a great 1st gen watch and it would get better in the future but the most basic shouldn't cost that much. I can understand if it had premium quality like the sapphire and such but the basic should cost at the least $150-$200

Lower the prices of a 2015 Mercedes to $15,000. K?

 

[Tanegashima]

Ok, buy something else or nothing at all.

You even basically said that it sucks.

 

[Piggie]

Apple has done it's homework.

You can be sure they have been hard at work long ago, trying to work out a price point they feel is something enough people are willing to pay.

They then, once they know this number, have to build a device up to / down to this price point.

If they did all the surveys in the world and found out, upon looking at all the data, almost no one would be willing to pay more than $99 then they would not be making this device in the 1st place.

That's just business.

You can only price something at a point you already know, or think you know the market out there will stand.

Of course, there is always guesswork, but Apple does have the "they could sell a turd on a stick that had the Apple logo on it" thing going for them at the moment

We can be sure than, at $349 to Apple Owners, this is a well reachable price for millions. A little higher than other brands, but not so far above to make it unobtainable.

Of course, Apple Has got it's price point wrong, but that's rare.

What they are more lightly to do in the future is adjust the quality or specs of the product to better fit the price, than to adjust the price to fit the model.

I of course agree, as a consumer cheaper would always be better for me.

However, there are many who get a personal kick out of paying more as it makes them feel special and better than someone that cannot afford it.

I recall a program about perfume from years ago, speaking to the Channel people, and they said if they dropped the price they would lose sales, as it then losing it's "I feel special as I'm wearing it" aspect.

We humans are funny animals

 

[MacDawg]

Apple will charge what consumers are willing to pay

 

[Piggie]

Apple will charge what consumers are willing to pay

Exactly that's good business

If they have done, on the quiet research and found out Apple device owners felt that 350 was an acceptable price point then that's how they designed the watch.

Exactly the same way food companies create boxed meals etc.

They say to their department, ok, well, we need a new Turkey dinner to sell in our stores. We need it to sell in-store for $2.99
We as always want a 100% mark up on our food products, so you have $1.50 to play with.
50 cents will be the cost of manufacture and shipping for each package, so you have 1 dollars worth of ingredients you can use.

Get to work and see what you can come up with.

You don't spend ages making something, and THEN find out how much it cost you and it's going to be too expensive. Not when you are making things in mass quantities.

That's why you would get a shock how cheap stuff really is to make compared to the retail in-store cost

 

[Jessica Lares]

When you get to the real world where you don't depend on your parents to buy you expensive toys, $400 is going to be nothing. In a lot of your posts you complain a lot about not being able to afford an iPhone, MacBook Pro, etc. Grow up, get a job, and save up. It's worth it in the end.

And if you're unwilling to do that, then stop complaining about it.

 

[NewtypeCJ]

No. Considering what quality watches cost, and the quality we normally get from Apple, starting at $350 is just fine.

 

[xraydoc]

$18B in profits last quarter.

If Apple wants to make the Watch exclusive for now, I don't think there's much anyone can do to stop them.

 

[Quijano187]

if you think that too much .. You have no business here. Pretty simple

 

[telefono]

Apple, please increase the price of the Apple Watch..........I'm not interested in garbage like some of the other brands with plastic watches, crappy software and watches looking like toys.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Sorry, but they're not marketing the Apple Watch to teenagers with little disposable income. Just because you can't afford it at $350 doesn't make it too expensive, and $350 is hardly a lot of money in the watch world.

This is the ironic thing. It isn't a watch per-se. Its a wrist computer that can display simulated watch faces. As such, it does not command premium watch prices, case materials aside.

I agree with the OP in general. I think the initial offering will be high due to the high risk of a new product and the recoup of R&D. Apple MAY lower the price at some point, especially as subsequent models are introduced. But I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Jessica Lares]

This is the ironic thing. It isn't a watch per-se. Its a wrist computer that can display simulated watch faces. As such, it does not command premium watch prices, case materials aside.

I agree with the OP in general. I think the initial offering will be high due to the high risk of a new product and the recoup of R&D. Apple MAY lower the price at some point, especially as subsequent models are introduced. But I wouldn't count on it.

If it doesn't sell, they'll just stop production. The iPhone 5C didn't sell well, so they just stopped making them.

They didn't lower the price on the iPods, they made them smaller, with less space, less materials, etc, to get to that price point. There would be no point doing that here because then it means taking out the sensors, ApplePay, and other stuff that defeats the whole purpose.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

If it doesn't sell, they'll just stop production. The iPhone 5C didn't sell well, so they just stopped making them.

They didn't lower the price on the iPods, they made them smaller, with less space, less materials, etc, to get to that price point. There would be no point doing that here because then it means taking out the sensors, ApplePay, and other stuff that defeats the whole purpose.

Is that true? iPods and iPhones got much cheaper after their initial release. Your comment about smaller, less materials may happen with Watch as well. There should be no need to remove features as there really isn't anything there now of any significant cost.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Apple fans are cut throat. LOL

 

[Rogifan]

If it doesn't sell, they'll just stop production. The iPhone 5C didn't sell well, so they just stopped making them.

When did Apple stop making the 5C?

 

[Jessica Lares]

When did Apple stop making the 5C?

OKAY, OKAY, they were reportedly going to to... Sorry.

https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/26/apple-stop-production-iphone-5c-2015/

 

[Rogifan]

OKAY, OKAY, they were reportedly going to to... Sorry.

https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/26/apple-stop-production-iphone-5c-2015/

And that goes for sales figures too. All rumors/guesses at this point. The only thing we know is Apple initially got the mix wrong. But that doesn't mean the 5C sold poorly as it was always meant to be a long tail product.

 

[wesk702]

$349 entry point

$499 Steel

>$3999 Edition


I think those will be the correct pricing

Wouldn't be surprised though if you tacked on an additional $100 figuring Apple.

 

[Cashmonee]

I somewhat agree with the OP. I think a starting price of $249 is a much hotter product than at $349. Remember, most people think an iPhone costs $199 or less. So the accessory costs nearly double? I actually wonder if Apple is thinking this will be a small sales market with very high margins.

EDIT: What I find interesting is most are hoping the steel version comes in around $500. I am thinking that won't happen. So, if it come closer to $600 or $700, what will be the response? You are now getting near MacBook Air territory. Seriously?

 

[DC Wallaby]

Yeah, no. Apple should not charge less for this.

How much do the materials cost?
How much does assembly cost?
How much does Research and Development cost?
How much does software development cost?
How much does Apple need to spend redesigning stores to properly meet the needs of potential Watch customers, and serve those who do buy it?
How much value will the product add to people's lives?
How much is the experience WORTH?

Apple's not just selling you a hunk of metal and glass with an Apple Watch. They're not even just selling you a wrist-bound computer. They're selling you years of hard work by multiple entire devisions of their company, hard work that will continue for years to come, all to create an experience that should enhance your life.

So Apple should charge whatever they feel that is worth.

 

[Rogifan]

I somewhat agree with the OP. I think a starting price of $249 is a much hotter product than at $349. Remember, most people think an iPhone costs $199 or less. So the accessory costs nearly double? I actually wonder if Apple is thinking this will be a small sales market with very high margins.

EDIT: What I find interesting is most are hoping the steel version comes in around $500. I am thinking that won't happen. So, if it come closer to $600 or $700, what will be the response? You are now getting near MacBook Air territory. Seriously?

Most people think an iPhone costs $199? Um, no. Go to AT&T's website and you don't even see that pricing anymore. You see their Next pricing (i.e $21-$28/mo). Verizon's website right now is showing $0 down for qualifying customers on Edge program. And the smaller print is showing full price. No $199/$299 anywhere. So I doubt anyone is going to think Watch is double the price of an iPhone.

A $600 Watch is $1.64 a day. Most people spend more than that on a Starbucks every day.